Posted by Tina
If you could write the rules wouldn’t you want to make sure they created systems that work for as many people as possible? And wouldn’t you want them to apply to everyone equally; to be fair? Would your rules create a supportive uplifting atmosphere that encouraged participation, innovation, and abundance? I would. I would not want my rules to adversely effect people, to make it impossible to continue in my business or put extreme pressure on my family’s budget. I wouldn’t want my rules to eliminate choices or create shortages and stagnation. This is exactly why I’m very concerned about President Obama’s proposed goals with respect to the legislation we’ve seen:
Under this plan, it will be against the law for insurance companies to deny you coverage because of a pre-existing condition. ** They will no longer be able to place some arbitrary cap on the amount of coverage you can receive in a given year or a lifetime. ** We will place a limit on how much you can be charged for out-of-pocket expenses, because in the United States of America, no one should go broke because they get sick. ** And insurance companies will be required to cover, with no extra charge, routine checkups and preventive care, like mammograms and colonoscopies – because there’s no reason we shouldn’t be catching diseases like breast cancer and colon cancer before they get worse. – President Obama
These goals sound entirely reasonable and fair. They sound like goals that will benefit everyone. They sound like goals that will open doors. So what is the problem? The problem is the rules in the legislation promising these goals will not work for everyone. They will not ensure that we have choices about our coverage or that we are left with a vibrant, innovative, abundant health care industry. President Obama is right that the health care proposals do not force anyone into a single payer system, for instance, but the unintended consequences of the proposed legislation is that it will ultimately result in a single payer system.
A very good article by Sally Pipes, “Killing Insurance,” explains how these rules are flawed and why they will “kill insurance companies” and eliminate health care insurance options for all Americans. I offer a sampling from the article but please read the entire article. These examples placed in context will be so more more illuminating.
“Killing insurance – Prez’s promises a death knell,” by Sally Pipes – New York Post
Under his plan, insurers would be faced with “guaranteed issue” and “community rating.” In other words, they wouldn’t be allowed to deny insurance based on a pre-existing condition, take coverage away in the middle of a treatment, set a premium based on one’s medical history or set lifetime caps on coverage. *** If there were a “guaranteed issue” law for fire insurance, no one would buy coverage unless his or her home was actually on fire. We’d see the same “negative selection” under the Obama plan: Lots of people would simply avoid buying insurance until they got sick. After all, if you can’t be turned down when you are sick, why bother wasting money on insurance when you don’t need it? *** Obama also noted that he’d force insurers to include certain benefits in every plan — including preventive procedures such as colonoscopies and mammograms. This, too, would drive up premiums. *** For evidence, consider the impact that such “mandated benefits” have had at the state level. As of 2007, the average state had 38 benefit mandates. These mandates raise the premium of a basic insurance package anywhere from 20 to 50 percent, according to the Council for Affordable Health Insurance.
Clearly there are problems that must be addressed in order to deliver the presidents goals and make the system workable for everyone. It makes sense to address those individual problems with legislation. It does not make sense to write legislation that undermines and changes our excellent health care industry…including the insurance sector.